Talk:RR3 Wiki:Update Gold Requirements/@comment-27170954-20180930211632/@comment-29605676-20181010152725
Hi Clsj35, as promised a more detailed response. Sorry, I don't know how to paste your original comments as quotes here, so italics will have to do with my response in non-italics... "First off, I would organize the table for an update in three groups – one for new cars, one for flashbacks (including LTS for existing cars), and one for new series for added for existing cars where there is not a flashback." As I said previously, the tables are based on a template created by Sirebel and I don't know if doing what you suggest is possible easily. I agree it would make it easier to read. I may try when I have some time "Secondly, I am not a fan of using the absolute lowest cost for SEs. I think it is more appropriate to use the typical GC cost that most players will have to spend. Since this is still not 100% objective, I might even suggest that recommended PR be treated as required PR for the purposes of these tables. Lower costs could be highlighted in the notes. Rather than saying “most will need more” say “some have earned for less.” This would paint a more realistic picture of the update costs. This will only impact the “garage” column. The 100% number (ignoring possible future sales) is nit impacted by this change." I totally agree that using the absolute minimum PR is not realistic for the majority of racers, but according to Sirebel this record represents the gold added to the game. While your suggestion of using recommended PR (where applicable) would be better is valid, but for now I will continue with current methodology for sake of consistency. "I would specifically state in the page notes at the beginning if the “100%” and “Total” columns mean 100% series and 100% garage or just 100% series. Based on the numbers currently in the tables (at lease since 6.3) it seems that “100%” does not include 100% garage, but “total” does." The garage column is cost to maintain full garage through winning the car, the 100% column is cost to maintain full garage, and the total column is cost to buy the car and upgrade for its series completion. If you would like to write some text to clarify this (and anything else), I will happily add (or at least consider adding) it to the text description at the top. In truth, the top of the page needs some work as there have been changes to WTTT, OMP etc. This is on my list but any help greatfully accepted. "For the calculation of the “100%” column, my interpretation is that it is 100% series completion, but NOT 100% garage. If this is true, I would explicitly say so in the notes at the beginning of the page." Similar answer to previous point but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by '100% series completion, but NOT 100% garage'. The series assumes that you have the car so winning cost/buy cost is not included. I think this was chosen by Sirebel to keep things fairly simple "The Total calculation should include the series rewards. For example, in the 6.5 table the 600LT has a buy cost of 600, an upgrade cost of 666, and series completion of 67. The total cost to a player that misses the special event is 1,199, not 1,266. (BUY + Upgrade – Series). I would include this formula like is done for garage and 100%" I hadn't noticed this, but I agree with your logic. However, as I said earlier, the table is based on a template created by Sirebel that I don't know how it works/calculates and don't have access to it. So for now, I think this has to stay as is but perhaps clarify in a description "For these new series where there are multiple cars, but only 1 is required for series completion – the series completions should be assigned to the strategically recommended lowest cost car. For example, the Porsche 911 GT1-98 in the 1998 GTE series. For Supercars 2018, all cost the same so the Holden is chosen at random – I don’t seen any better way. The other cars should be treated differently in the tables. Right now, several cars show negative values for 100%. Look at the 2018 Altima and Falcon Supercars and the Nissan R390 GT1. If the 100% column is not intended to include 100% garage, then the 100% value for these cars should be 0. If it does include 100% garage, then the 100% value should be the same as the garage value. For these cars, the total column should be 0 if that is not meant represent 100% series or the buy value if total includes 100% garage." Again, this comes about from the way the values in the table are calculated. I agree with your thoughts but there is currently no way around this because of the auto-calculation. "Lastly, for new series where there is no repeat opportunity to win the car(s), the car with the optimal GC strategy should be in these tables. For example - right now, the 6.5 table shows the NISMO for the 2015 Prototypes series. The optimal GC strategy is the Audi so I would put this car in the table." I agree and was actually trying to follow the strategy pages, like you suggest, but I made an error choosing the Nismo. I will change as per your comment here is an example of what the numbers should be for 6.5 - this table assumes 100% and total include 100% garage and 100% series. just an assumption for my personal table. The XE SV Project 8 is difficult to handle. I'm not sure how to handle this situation. Total column should probably be 0. We all have our ways to calculate based on goals and stage in game, and like your table, I also have one for personal use. The numbers in my table vary somewhat from the one on this page. When I started maintaining this page, it took some time to work out the logic and find the right ways to enter data. I tend to agree that some things are a little unclear. If you follow this thread , then it might help you understand some questions I had. However, for now at least, I will carry on as is. I hope that after all these Motorsport changes are over, this will become a little easier... Any comments and suggestions welcome and, in particular, pointing out any errors.